Economic Analysis of Proposed Water Quality Objectives for ... · 5/25/2017 · Economic Analysis of Proposed Water Quality Objectives for Pathogens in ... Summary of California’s

Economic Analysis of Proposed Water Quality Objectives for Pathogens in

the State of California

June 2017

Prepared For:

Ghulam Ali, WACOR

Matthew Mitchell, Alternative WACOR

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Science and Technology, Engineering and Analysis Division

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, D.C. 20460

Prepared By:

Abt Associates Inc.

Environment and Natural Resources Division

55 Wheeler Street

Cambridge, MA 02138

With

PG Environmental

14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 125

Chantilly, VA 20151

Under U.S. EPA Contract No. Contract EP-C-13-039

June 2017

i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ ES-1

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Need for the Proposed Rule ............................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Scope of the Analysis ......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Organization of this Report ................................................................................................ 1-2

2 Baseline for the Analysis .................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Water Quality Objectives for Bacterial Indicators in Fresh Waters ................................... 2-1

2.2 Sources of Bacteria to California Waters ........................................................................... 2-2

2.2.1 Municipal and Industrial Dischargers ....................................................................... 2-2

2.2.2 Storm Water Discharges ........................................................................................... 2-3

2.2.3 Nonpoint Sources ...................................................................................................... 2-5

2.3 Impaired Waters ................................................................................................................. 2-6

3 Description of Proposed Policy ....................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Water Quality Objectives ................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Inland Surface Waters ............................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.2 Ocean Waters ............................................................................................................ 3-2

3.2 Implementation Procedures ................................................................................................ 3-2

3.2.1 Water Quality-based Effluent Limitations ................................................................ 3-2

3.2.2 Reference System/Antidegradation Approach and Natural Sources Exclusion

Approach ................................................................................................................... 3-3

3.2.3 Alternative REC-1 Beneficial Use Designations ...................................................... 3-3

3.2.4 Water Quality Standards Variances .......................................................................... 3-5

4 Estimated Compliance ..................................................................................................... 4-6

4.1 Incrementally Impaired Waters .......................................................................................... 4-6

4.2 Municipal and Industrial Wastewater ................................................................................ 4-7

4.3 NPDES Stormwater .......................................................................................................... 4-10

5 Compliance Methods and Costs ...................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Municipal and Industrial Wastewater ................................................................................ 5-1

5.1.1 Control Costs ............................................................................................................ 5-1

5.2 NPDES Stormwater ............................................................................................................ 5-5

June 2017

ii

6 Statewide Costs ................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Point Sources ...................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Nonpoint Sources ............................................................................................................... 6-1

6.3 Limitations and Uncertainties ............................................................................................ 6-2

7 References ......................................................................................................................... 7-1

Appendix A. Phase I MS4 Permit Requirements ............................................................. A-1

Appendix B. Municipal and Industrial Discharger Estimated Compliance ...................B-1

Appendix C. Municipal and Industrial Discharger Process Modification Analysis ..... C-1

June 2017

iii

List of Exhibits

Exhibit ES-1: Proposed Bacteria Objectives ............................................................................ ES-1

Exhibit ES-2. Statewide Policy Compliance Costs (2016$) ..................................................... ES-1

Exhibit 2-1. Summary of Regional and Ocean Plan REC-1 Bacteria Objectives ...................... 2-1

Exhibit 2-2. NPDES Permittees Discharging in California ........................................................ 2-2

Exhibit 2-3. Summary of California’s 2012 303(d) List of Freshwater and Saltwater Fecal

Indicator Bacteria Impairments ............................................................................................ 2-6

Exhibit 2-4: Sources of Pathogen Impairment ............................................................................. 2-6

Exhibit 2-5: Summary of Bacteria TMDLs in California1........................................................... 2-7

Exhibit 3-1: Freshwater Bacteria Objectives ............................................................................... 3-1

Exhibit 3-2: Marine Bacteria Objectives ..................................................................................... 3-2

Exhibit 4-1. NPDES Permittees Likely to Receive More Stringent Effluent Limitations Under the

Proposed Policy. ................................................................................................................... 4-8

Exhibit 5-1. Process Modification Cost Components ................................................................. 5-3

Exhibit 5-2. Summary of Sample Annualized Process Modification Costs ................................ 5-3

Exhibit 5-3. Sample Monitoring Costs for E. coli, Fecal Coliform, and Total Coliform ........... 5-4

Exhibit 5-4. Average Monitoring Costs Summary ..................................................................... 5-5

Exhibit 6-1. Statewide Policy Compliance Costs (2016$)........................................................... 6-1

Exhibit 6-2: Summary of Limitations and Uncertainties of the Analysis .................................... 6-2

Exhibit A-1: Permit Requirements and SWMP Activities Specific to Bacteria for Phase I MS4s

in California ......................................................................................................................... A-1

Exhibit B-1. Estimated Compliance Under Baseline and Policy Scenarios ............................... B-1

Exhibit C-1. Process Modification Design Summary ................................................................. C-1

Exhibit C-2. Process Modification Cost Summary ..................................................................... C-1

June 2017

iv

Abbreviations

BEACH Act Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act

CSO Combined sewer overflow

CT Contact time

cu. yd. Cubic yard

CWA Clean Water Act

CZARA Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments

DRBC Delaware River Basin Commission

EO Executive Order

U.S. EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FC Fecal coliform

FS Fecal streptococcus

mgd Million gallons per day

MS4 Municipal separate storm sewer system

NPDES National pollutant discharge elimination system

O&M Operation and maintenance

PCS Permit compliance system

POTW Publicly owned treatment work

RB4 Los Angeles Regional Board

SIC Standard industrial classification

sq. ft. Square feet

SSM Single sample maximum

SSO Sanitary sewer overflow

TMDL Total maximum daily load

WQS Water quality standards

June 2017

ES-1

Executive Summary

The State Water Resources Control Board is proposing to amend the statewide Water Quality

Control Plans for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries and the Water Quality

Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California to include updated water quality objectives for

bacteria to protect human health for the beneficial use of water contact recreation (REC-1) in

fresh and marine waters. Exhibit ES-1 shows the proposed objectives for fresh and marine

waters. Under a contract with the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Abt

Associates provided the State Water Board with an analysis of economic factors related to the

proposal, including compliance with the water quality objective options, available methods to

achieve compliance with these options, and the costs of those methods.

Exhibit ES-1: Proposed Bacteria Objectives

Applicable Waters Indicator Parameter Geometric Mean1

(cfu/100 mL) STV2

(cfu/100 mL)

Freshwater Bacteria Objectives

All waters where the salinity is less than 10 ppth 95 percent or more of the time

except Lake Tahoe E. coli 100 320

Lake Tahoe E. coli 17 55

All waters where the salinity is equal to or greater than 10 ppth 95 percent or

more of the time Enterococci 30 110

Marine Bacteria Objectives

Ocean Waters Enterococci 30 110

1. Based on a 6-week rolling geometric mean, calculated weekly. 2. Calculated monthly

Abt Associates evaluated probable costs associated with adoption of the objectives by

developing the following for a sample selection of NDPES permittees affected by the proposed

policy: (1) treatment costs associated with complying with more stringent objectives, and

(2) incremental costs associated with changes in bacteria monitoring requirements. Based on

sample results, Abt estimated annual statewide costs associated with the proposed policy

(Exhibit ES-2). Negative cost values indicate a likely cost savings relative to existing policy.

Exhibit ES-2. Statewide Policy Compliance Costs (2016$)

Scenario Annualized Costs ($/year; 20 years)

3% Interest Rate 7% Interest Rate

Disinfection Modification Costs $935,000 $988,000

Monitoring Costs - $789,000 - $789,000

Total Net Costs $146,000 $199,000

June 2017

1-1

1 Introduction

The California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) is proposing a

statewide policy for bacteria for California fresh waters and ocean waters. This report describes

the economic considerations associated with the proposed policy. Specifically, the State Water

Board analyzed whether the proposed objectives are currently being attained, what methods are

available to achieve compliance with the objectives, and the costs of those methods.

1.1 Need for the Proposed Rule

Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), states have primary authority for establishing designated

uses for water bodies, and for developing water quality criteria to protect those designated uses.

Under Section 303(c)(2)(B) of the CWA, whenever a state adopts new water quality standards,

or reviews or revises existing water quality standards, it must adopt numeric water quality

criteria if the absence of such criteria could reasonably be expected to interfere with a designated

use of a water body.

In 1986, U.S. EPA revised its ambient water quality criteria for bacteria, recommending that E.

coli and enterococci be used as indicators of health risks from bacteria in marine and fresh water

instead of fecal coliform. U.S. EPA based its revised criteria on a review of epidemiological

studies relating gastrointestinal illness to specific bacterial indicators.

In 2012, pursuant to Clean Water Act section 304(a), U.S. EPA issued new recreational water

quality criteria recommendations for protecting human health in all coastal and non-coastal

waters designated for primary contact recreation use. While some Regional Water Boards have

adopted new bacteria indicators (E. coli and/or enterococci) none have adopted the 2012 U.S.

EPA Recommended Recreational Water Quality Criteria. The 2012 U.S. EPA recreational water

quality criteria document recommends bacteria indicators for inland surface waters and ocean

waters at two different risk levels that are protective for recreational activities.

The proposed policy, contained in Part 3 of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface

Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California—Bacteria Objectives with Provisions

(hereafter, the Proposed Policy), are the State Water Board’s proposal to adopt the updated

criteria into the Water Quality Control Plans for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and

Estuaries and Ocean Waters of California. The Proposed Policy seeks to establish consistent

statewide objectives for California waters and establishes procedures for implementing the

objectives.

1.2 Scope of the Analysis

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act requires the Regional Water Boards to take “economic

considerations,” among other factors, into account when they establish water quality objectives.

The other factors include the past, present, and probable future beneficial uses of water;

environmental characteristics of the hydrographic unit under consideration; water quality

conditions that could reasonably be achieved through the coordinated control of all factors

affecting water quality in the area; the need for housing; and the need to develop and use

June 2017

1-2

recycled water. The objectives must ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses, and the

prevention of nuisance.

To meet the economic considerations requirement, the State Water Board (1999; 1994)

concluded that, at a minimum, the Regional Water Boards must analyze:

Whether the proposed objective is currently being attained;

If not, what methods are available to achieve compliance; and

The cost of those methods.

If the economic consequences of adoption are potentially significant, the Regional Water Boards

must explain why adoption is necessary to ensure reasonable protection of beneficial uses or

prevent nuisance. The Boards can adopt objectives despite significant economic consequences;

there is no requirement for a formal cost-benefit analysis.1

Under a contract with the U.S. EPA, Abt Associates provided the State Water Board with an

analysis of economic considerations. Specifically, Abt Associates identified baseline

requirements, potentially affected entities, likely incremental compliance actions, and costs for

these entities under the proposed Policy.

1.3 Organization of this Report

This report is organized as follows:

Section 2 – describes the current applicable objectives and requirements that provide the

baseline for the analysis of the incremental impact of the Policy.

Section 3 – describes the proposed Policy.

Section 4 – identifies whether the proposed objectives are currently being met and whether

there are any incremental impacts of meeting the objectives.

Section 5 – describes the methods for compliance and their costs.

Section 6 – provides estimates of potential incremental statewide costs of the proposed

Policy.

Appendices provide detailed information on total maximum daily load (TMDL) implementation

plans, and incremental compliance/costs associated with numeric water quality based effluent

limits (WQBELs).

1 Water quality objectives establish concentrations protective of beneficial uses and the fishable/swimmable goals of the CWA,

and thus are based on science and not economics. Economics can play a role in establishing water quality standards through the

analysis of use attainability [removal of a beneficial use which is not an existing use under 40 CFR 131.10(g)]. However, the

applicable economic criterion in such an analysis is not efficiency (i.e., maximizing net benefits, based on cost-benefit analysis)

but distributional impacts (a determination of whether there will be substantial and widespread economic and social impacts from

implementing controls more stringent than those required by sections 301(b) and 306 of the CWA). This criterion may also be

employed at the local level in the evaluation of temporary variances.

June 2017

2-1

2 Baseline for the Analysis

This section describes the applicable baseline for evaluating the potential incremental costs of

the proposed Policy options, including current water quality criteria for pathogens, potential

sources of pathogens, and the current levels of impairment of inland surface waters, enclosed

bays, estuaries, and ocean waters in California.

2.1 Water Quality Objectives for Bacterial Indicators in Fresh Waters

Pathogen objectives for California fresh waters are established in the individual basin plans of

the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards, while objectives for marine waters are

established in the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan,

2015). Exhibit 2-1 summarizes the bacteria objectives for each Region and the Ocean Plan.

Exhibit 2-1. Summary of Regional and Ocean Plan REC-1 Bacteria Objectives

Regional Water Board Indicators Geometric Meana Maximum

Freshwater Objectives

North Coast (1) Fecal coliform 50/100 mLb 400/100 mLc

San Francisco Bay (2) Fecal coliform Total coliform

E. colie

Enterococcie

200/100 mL 240/100 mLb

126/100 mL 33/100 mL

400/100 mLd

10,000/100 mL 235 – 576/100 mLf

61 – 151/100 mLf

Central Coast (3) Fecal coliform 200/100 mL 400/100 mLc

Los Angeles (4) E. coli Fecal coliform Total Coliform

126/100 mL 200/100 mL

1,000/100 mL

235/100 mL 400/100 mL

10,000/100 mL

Central Valley (5) Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins Folsom Lake Tulare Lake Basin

Fecal coliform Fecal coliform Fecal coliform

200/100 mL 100/100 mL 200/100 mL

400/100 mLc 200/100 mLc

400/100 mLc

Lahontan (6)g Fecal coliform 20/100 mL 40/100 mLc

Colorado River (7) E. coli Enterococci

Fecal coliform

126/100 mL 33/100 mL 200/100 mL

400/100 mLf

100/100 mLf

400/100 mLc

Santa Ana (8) Fecal coliform 200/100 mL 400/100 mLc

San Diego (9) Fecal coliform E. colie

Enterococcie

200/100 mL 126/100 mL 33/100 mL

400/100 mLc

235 – 576/100 mLh

61 – 151/100 mLh

Ocean Water Objectives

Ocean Plan Fecal Coliform Total Coliform Enterococci

200/100 mL 1,000/100 mL

35/100 mL

400/100 mL 10,000/100 mL

104/100 mL

June 2017

2-2

a. Based on at least 5 samples over a 30-day period. b. Based on median of samples, not geometric mean c. 10% of samples cannot exceed maximum d. Based on the 90

th percentile value

e. Included in Basin Plans as supplemental criteria to either fecal coliform or total coliform criteria. f. The maximum E. coli and enterococci criteria for the Colorado River are 235/100 mL and 61/100 ml, respectively g. The bacteria objectives for Region 6 apply to all waters independent of designated beneficial uses. h. Maximum values determined based on frequency and density of recreational use.

2.2 Sources of Bacteria to California Waters

There are a number of sources of bacteria to fresh waters and marine waters, including municipal

and industrial point sources, storm water, and various natural and human-caused nonpoint

sources.

2.2.1 Municipal and Industrial Dischargers

POTWs collect and treat domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater. This wastewater

must be disinfected prior to discharge to a receiving water to remove high levels of bacteria.

Based on POTW indicator codes and receiving water body names in U.S. EPA’s Integrated

Compliance Information System (ICIS; 2017) database, there are 224 POTWs and federally-

owned municipal wastewater treatment plants discharging to waters within the state. In addition,

there are 79 industrial permittees. U.S. EPA classifies 40% of these facilities as minor

dischargers (i.e., facilities discharging less than 1 million gallons per day (MGD) and not likely

to discharge toxic pollutants in toxic amounts). Exhibit 2-2 provides a summary of these

dischargers by receiving water type.

Exhibit 2-2. NPDES Permittees Discharging in California

Facility Type Major/Minor Category

Total Major Facilities Minor Facilities

Inland Surface Waters, Bays, and Enclosed Estuaries,

Industrial 17 50 67

POTWs 134 60 194

Federal 1 3 4

Subtotal 152 113 265

Pacific Ocean

Industrial 8 4 12

POTWs 21 4 25

Federal 0 1 1

Subtotal 29 9 38

Source: U.S. EPA (2017).

Another potential source of pathogens to fresh water associated with POTWs may result from

combined sewer overflows (CSOs) or sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). CSOs generally occur

in response to wet weather events (i.e., during and following periods of rainfall or snowmelt).

Combined sewer systems are usually designed to discharge flows that exceed conveyance

June 2017

2-3

capacity directly to receiving water bodies. Discharges of pathogens from CSOs are covered

under U.S. EPA’s CSO Control Policy. The CSO Control Policy contains provisions for

developing site-specific NPDES permits for combined sewer systems that overflow due to wet

weather events, and establishes nine minimum technology-based controls. There are two

permitted CSO dischargers within the state to ocean waters (CA0037681, CA0037664) and one

to inland surface waters (CA0079111). These permittees are included in the summary above

under POTWs (Exhibit 2-2).

SSOs can be induced by rainfall or snowmelt when excess inflow and infiltration causes the

conveyance capacity of the sanitary sewer to be exceeded. SSOs also occur as a result of other,

dry weather causes such as blockages, line breaks, vandalism, mechanical failures, and power

failure. Regional Water Boards prohibit SSOs unless they have authorized such discharges

through a NPDES permit. Due to the number of causes of SSOs and that they are not usually

permitted discharges, it is difficult to estimate the number and volume of each overflow.

However, the State Water Board does not anticipate that any incremental SSO controls (or costs)

would be needed to meet the proposed water quality standards for bacteria, compared to the

current bacteria standards in each region. Controls for SSOs include sewer system cleaning and

maintenance; reducing infiltration and inflow through system rehabilitation and repairing broken

or leaking service lines; enlarging or upgrading sewer, pump station, or sewage treatment plant

capacity and reliability; and constructing wet weather storage and treatment facilities to treat

excess flows. These controls result in reducing or eliminating SSOs, and therefore, would

reduce bacteria levels, regardless of the indicator measured.

There are a number of industrial facility types that have the potential to discharge bacteria to

fresh waters. For example, facilities that treat domestic waste such as apartment complexes,

mobile home parks, camping sites, resorts, and correctional facilities may discharge bacteria.

Based on U.S. EPA’s ICIS database (2017), there are 79 industrial discharges permitted to

discharge to surface waters within the state. Of these, 39 permittees possess pathogen effluent

limitations. U.S. EPA classifies 25 (approximately 64%) of these facilities as minor dischargers

(i.e., facilities discharging less than 1MGD and not likely to discharge toxic pollutants in toxic

amounts).

2.2.2 Storm Water Discharges

There are various types of storm water dischargers, including MS4, construction sites, and

industrial activities. Regional Water Boards regulates stormwater under two different types;

general and individual permits. General permits often require compliance with standards through

an iterative approach based on stormwater management plans (SWMP), rather than through the

use of numeric effluent limits. In other words, permittees implement best management practices

(BMPs) identified in their SWMPs. Then, if those BMPs do not result in attainment of water

quality standards, Regional Water Boards require additional practices until pollutant levels are

reduced to the appropriate levels. Because Regional Water Boards use this iterative approach that

increases requirements until water quality objectives are met, current levels of implementation

June 2017

2-4

may not reflect the maximum level of control required to meet existing standards. The State

Water Board has four existing programs for controlling pollutants in stormwater runoff to

surface waters: municipal, industrial, construction, and California Department of Transportation

(Caltrans).

2.2.2.1 Municipal

The municipal program regulates stormwater discharges from municipal separate storm sewer

systems (MS4s). The MS4 permits require the discharger to develop and implement a SWMP (or

equivalent), with the goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent

practicable (MEP). MEP is the performance standard specified in Section 402(p) of the CWA.

The management programs specify the BMPs that will be used to address public education and

outreach; illicit discharge detection and elimination; construction and post-construction; and

good housekeeping for municipal operations.

The municipal program is divided up into two different types of permittee; Phase I and Phase II.

There are 22 NPDES permits for Phase I MS4s in California. Refer to Appendix A for a

summary of MS4 permit requirements related to pathogens and bacteria. In addition, there are

235 small MS4s required to reduce the discharge of pollutants and comply with any TMDL

requirements.

In California, typical permit requirements that are now being included in all Phase I MS4 permits

and the Phase II General Permit include:

Specific thresholds for “Priority Projects” that must include both source and treatment

control BMPs in the completed projects;

A list of source control (both nonstructural and structural) BMPs and treatment control

BMPs to be included or considered;

Specific water quality design volume and/or water quality design flow rate for treatment

control BMPs;

A requirement for flow control BMPs when there is potential for downstream erosion; and

Adopt a standard model or template for identifying and documenting BMPs including a

plan for long-term operations and maintenance of BMPs.

2.2.2.2 Caltrans

In 1996, Caltrans requested that the State Water Board consider adopting a single NPDES permit

for stormwater discharges from all Caltrans properties, facilities, and activities that would cover

both the MS4 requirements and the statewide construction general permit requirements. The

State Water Board issued the Caltrans general permit in 1999 and a renewed permit in 2012

(Order 2012-0011-DWQ; NPDES No. CAS000003). The permit requires Caltrans to control

pollutant discharges to the MEP and implement a stormwater program designed to achieve

compliance with water quality standards, over time through an iterative approach. If discharges

are found to be causing or contributing to an exceedance of an applicable objective, Caltrans is

required to revise its BMPs (including use of additional and more effective BMPs).

June 2017

2-5

The Order stipulates that the permittee must comply with applicable TMDLs and water quality

standards, including those for pathogens, but states that Caltrans is a relatively minor source of

bacterial pollutants. The permit provides for a prioritization strategy wherein the agency will

identify and control the largest sources of bacteria first.

2.2.2.3 Industrial

Under the industrial program, the State Water Board issues a general NPDES permit that

regulates discharges associated with ten broad categories of industrial activities (Order No.

2014-0057-DWQ; NPDES No. CAS000001). This general permit requires the implementation of

management measures that will achieve the performance standard of best available technology

economically achievable (BAT) and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). The

permit also requires that dischargers develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)

and a monitoring plan. Through the SWPPP, dischargers must identify sources of pollutants, and

describe the means to manage the sources to reduce stormwater pollution. For the monitoring

plan, facility operators may participate in group monitoring programs to reduce costs and

resources. The permit includes monitoring requirements for bacteria and requires that permittees

comply with water quality standards and applicable TMDLs.

2.2.2.4 Construction

Under the construction storm water program, the State Water Board issues a general NPDES

permit that regulates discharges associated with storm water discharges associated with

construction and other land disturbance activities (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ; NPDES No.

CAS000002). This general permit requires the implementation of management measures that

will achieve the performance standard of best available technology economically achievable

(BAT) and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). The permit also requires that

dischargers develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a monitoring plan.

The permit requires that permittees comply with all applicable water quality standards.

2.2.3 Nonpoint Sources

Runoff from livestock operations are controlled at the Regional Water Board level by nonpoint

source BMPs and other methods. The nonpoint source pollution program typically relies on

discharger implementation of management practices to control pollution sources. Nonpoint

source pollution results from contact between pollutants and land runoff, precipitation,

atmospheric deposition, drainage, seepage, or hydrologic modification. Generally, preventing or

minimizing generation of nonpoint source discharges most effectively controls nonpoint source

pollution.

In 2004, the State Water Board adopted a Policy for Implementation and Enforcement of the

Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Policy outlines the five key elements that

must be included in a nonpoint source pollution implementation program. One key element is a

description of the management practices and other program elements that will be implemented to

achieve and maintain water quality standards. The policy also confirms that all discharges or

threatened discharges to waters of the state must be regulated by the water boards. The policy

June 2017

2-6

reiterates that the regulatory tools for non-point source discharges are waste discharge

requirements (permits), waivers of waste discharger requirements, and prohibitions.

2.3 Impaired Waters

A 2004 policy (Resolution No. 2004-0063; as amended by Resolution 2015-0005) establishes

procedures for including California waters on the state 303(d) list as impaired. There are 764

fresh and salt water bodies on California’s 2012 303(d) list that are impaired from elevated levels

of fecal indicator bacteria (fecal coliform, total coliform, and E. coli). The 303(d) list identifies

impairment for bacteria, bacteria indicators, enteric viruses, enterococci, fecal coliform, high

coliform count, pathogens, and total coliform. Exhibit 2-3 summarizes the number of impaired

water bodies by region.

Exhibit 2-3. Summary of California’s 2012 303(d) List of Freshwater and Saltwater Fecal

Indicator Bacteria Impairments

Regional Water Board

Water Body Type

Bay &

Harbor

Coastal & Bay

Shoreline Estuary

Lakes/

Reservoirs

Rivers/

Streams

Wetlands (Freshwater &

Tidal) Total

North Coast (1) 0 12 0 0 17 0 29

San Francisco Bay (2)

2 18 1 0 11 0 32

Central Coast (3) 2 36 11 3 158 1 211

Los Angeles (4) 5 61 18 1 65 2a 152

Central Valley (5) 0 0 1 1 62 0 64

Lahontan (6) 0 0 0 0 25 0 25

Colorado River (7)

0 0 0 1b 9 0 10

Santa Ana (8) 2 1 1 3 36 0 43

San Diego (9) 4 157 6 0 31 0 198

Total 15 285 38 8 414 1 764 Source: SWRCB (2015)

a These wetlands are tidal wetlands. b This lake is Saline Lake.

Of the 764 impaired water bodies listed as impaired for fecal indicator bacteria on the 303(d) list,

617 (81%) possess target TMDL completion dates, which range from 2004 to 2026.

There are a number of different causes of impairment for pathogens, including natural sources,

point and nonpoint sources, and urban runoff. Exhibit 2-4 summarizes the potential sources of

impairments as listed on the 303(d) list (SWRCB, 2015). Note that some segments have multiple

potential sources.

Exhibit 2-4: Sources of Pathogen Impairment

Potential Sources Number of Water Body

Segments

Agriculture 17

Miscellaneous 1

Municipal Wastewater 3

June 2017

2-7

Exhibit 2-4: Sources of Pathogen Impairment

Potential Sources Number of Water Body

Segments

Natural Sources 30

Recreation Areas/Activities 5

Unpermitted Discharges 4

Unspecified Nonpoint Sources 88

Unspecified Point Sources 16

Urban Runoff 30

Unknown 564

Waste Storage & Disposal 6

Source: SWRCB (2015).

Exhibit 2-5 provides a summary of Bacteria TMDLs developed for REC-1 impairment. As part

of the TMDL development process, Regional Water Board staff can develop site-specific

objectives that are adopted by the Regional Water Board in their Basin Plans, or establish

numeric targets that are not adopted in Basin Plans.

Exhibit 2-5: Summary of Bacteria TMDLs in California1

TMDL Status/State Board

Resolution No. Pollutant

Region 1

Russian River Pathogen Indicator Bacteria TMDL

In development Indicator Bacteria

Region 2

Richardson Bay Pathogens TMDL Resolution No. 2009-0063 Pathogens

Napa River Pathogen TMDL Water Board Resolution No. R2-2006-0079

Pathogens

San Pedro Creek and Pacifica State Beach Bacteria TMDL

Resolution No. 2013-0007 Bacteria

Sonoma Creek Pathogens TMDL Resolution No. R2-2006-0042

Pathogens

Tomales Bay Pathogen TMDL Resolution No. R2-2005-0046

Pathogens

San Francisco Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL In development Bacteria

June 2017

2-8




Region 3

Aptos/Valencia Creek Pathogen TMDL Resolution No. 2010-0038 Pathogens

Arroyo de la Cruz Fecal Indicator Bacteria TMDL

Certified by Executive Officer

Indicator Bacteria

Cholame Creek Fecal Indicator Bacteria TMDL


Indicator Bacteria

Corralitos Creek Pathogen TMDL Resolution No. 2011-0019 Pathogens

Morro Bay Pathogen TMDL Resolution No. 2003-0060 Pathogens

Pajaro River Fecal Coliform TMDL Resolution No. 2010-0015 Fecal Coliform

Lower Salinas River Fecal Coliform TMDL Resolution No. 2011-0040 Fecal Coliform

Lower San Antonio Fecal Indicator Bacteria TMDL


Indicator Bacteria

San Lorenzo Creek (Monterey County) Fecal Indicator Bacteria TMDL


Indicator Bacteria

San Lorenzo River Watershed Pathogen TMDL

Resolution No. 2011-0010 Pathogens

San Luis Obispo Creek Pathogen TMDL Resolution No. 2005-0037 Pathogens

Santa Maria Watershed TMDL - Fecal Indicator Bacteria

Resolution No. 2012-0055 Pathogens

Soquel Lagoon Pathogen TMDL Resolution No. 2010-0031 Pathogens

Tularcitos Fecal Indicator Bacteria TMDL Certified by Executive Officer

Indicator Bacteria

Watsonville Slough Pathogen TMDL Resolution No. 2006-0067 Pathogens

Region 4

Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL (Dry Weather Only)

Resolution No. 2002- 0149 Bacteria

Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL (Wet Weather)

Resolution No. 2003 - 0022 Bacteria

Marina del Rey Back Basins Bacteria TMDL Resolution No. 2003 - 0072 Bacteria

Los Angeles Harbor Bacteria TMDL Resolution No. 2004- 0071 Bacteria

Malibu Creek Bacteria TMDL Resolution No. 2005-0072 Bacteria

McGrath Beach Coliform TMDL Cease & Desist Order Coliform

Avalon Bay Bacteria TMDL Cease & Desist Order Bacteria

Long Beach City Beaches and Los Angeles River Estuary Total Maximum Daily Loads for Indicator Bacteria

U.S. EPA Established Indicator Bacteria

Region 5

Stockton Urban Waterbodies Pathogen TMDL Implemented through MS4 permit

Pathogens

Region 7

New River Pathogen TMDL Resolution No. 2002 - 0042 Pathogens

Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Bacterial Indicators TMDL

Resolution No. 2011-0030 Bacteria Indicators

Region 8

Knickerbocker Creek Bacterial Indicators In Development Bacteria Indicators

Incorporate Bacterial Indicator TMDLs for Middle Santa Ana River Watershed Waterbodies

In Development Bacteria Indicators

Bacterial Indicator TMDLs for Canyon Lake Other Action Bacteria Indicators

TMDL for Fecal Coliform in Newport Bay. In Development Fecal Coliform

Region 9

June 2017

2-9




Revised TMDL for Indicator Bacteria, Project I – Twenty Beaches and Creeks in the San Diego Region (Including Tecolote Creek)

Resolution No. 2010-0064 Indicator Bacteria

Bacteria Impaired Waters TMDL for San Diego Bay and Dana Point Harbor Shorelines

Resolution No. 2009-0053 Bacteria

1. Current list as of May 2015.

June 2017

3-1

3 Description of Proposed Policy

This section describes the February 2017 draft proposed Policy water quality objectives and

implementation procedures as outlined in the draft proposed amendment to Part 3 of the Water

Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California, and

to the Ocean Plan. The proposed Policy identifies the applicable waters as those of State of

California with water contact recreation beneficial use (REC-1). This necessarily includes the

geographies of the nine Regional Water Boards within California. Note that the February 2017

draft Policy used to develop this report is not the most current version of the Policy—some

elements of the language used below and taken from the February 2017 draft have been updated

in the final proposed Policy. However, all changes are consistent with the analysis herein.

3.1 Water Quality Objectives

The proposed Policy would establish water quality objectives for bacteria to support water

contact recreation beneficial uses (REC-1). The objectives supersede all existing numeric

bacteria objectives to the extent a conflict exists, unless the proposed Policy expressively provide

that those conflicting objectives shall remain in effect.

Water quality objectives are expressed as a geometric mean and a statistical threshold value

(STV). The geometric mean is defined as the nth

root of the product of n numbers. The STV

approximates the 90th percentile of the water quality distribution of a bacterial population that

should not be exceeded by more than 10 percent of the samples taken.

3.1.1 Inland Surface Waters

The State Water Board has proposed to establish E. coli as the sole indicator organism for

bacteria in freshwaters2, including for Lake Tahoe where site specific objectives are established.

Enterococci is the sole indicator for estuarine inland surface waters. The proposed Policy also

proposes to establish U.S. EPA’s estimated illness rate of 32 per 1,000 primary contact recreators

to protect public health.

Exhibit 3-1: Freshwater Bacteria Objectives


(cfu/100 mL) STV2

(cfu/100 mL)

All waters where the salinity is less than 10

ppth 95 percent or more of the time except Lake

Tahoe

E. coli 100 320

Lake Tahoe E. coli 17 55

All waters where the salinity is equal to or

greater than 10 ppth 95 percent or more of the

time

Enterococci 30 110

2 Freshwaters are defined as those where salinity is less than 10 parts per thousand (ppth) 95 percent or more of the time.

June 2017

3-2


3.1.2 Ocean Waters

The State Water Board has proposed to establish enterococci as the sole indicator organism for

bacteria in ocean waters. The proposed Policy also proposes to establish U.S. EPA’s estimated

illness rate of 32 per 1,000 primary contact recreators to protect public health.

Exhibit 3-2: Marine Bacteria Objectives


(cfu/100 mL) STV2

(cfu/100 mL)

Ocean Waters Enterococci 30 110


3.2 Implementation Procedures

The State Water Board is considering adopting procedures for implementing the objectives,

including general procedures for all inland surface waters, enclosed bays, estuaries, and ocean

waters. The implementation options would not immediately supersede the implementation plans

of any existing bacteria TMDL; however, Regional Water Boards may update existing TMDLs

to align with the proposed standards as time and resources permit.

Under the proposed Policy, two options are provided which allow permittees to address natural

sources of bacteria in the context of a TMDL. These include a Reference

System/Antidegradation Approach and a Natural Source Exclusion Approach. These allow

dischargers to address and account for natural sources of bacteria, rather than to treat their

discharges more than necessary. In addition, the Policy allows for temporary suspension of REC-

1 objectives during specific conditions (i.e., high flows in freshwater waterbodies) when REC-1

uses are unsafe and, therefore, temporarily unattainable, known as a High Flow Suspension,

Seasonal Suspension or to designate a waterbody as possessing a Limited Water Contact

designation.

The proposed Policy also allows for the adoption of variances from the proposed water quality

standards when adopted by the Regional and State Water Boards and approved by U.S. EPA.

3.2.1 Water Quality-based Effluent Limitations

Wastewater point sources typically receive numeric water quality-based effluent limitations

(WQBELs) following a determination of reasonable potential (RP) to cause or contribute to an

excursion above a water quality objective. In practice, permittees treating municipal wastewater

or other pathogen-rich wastes are determined to possess RP as a matter of course, as bacteria are

a clear pollutant of concern for these discharges.

The State Board and Regional Water Boards implement dilution credits for bacteria according to

the procedures described in the Ocean Plan (for marine discharges) and in their respective Basin

June 2017

3-3

Plans. Seven of the Regional Water Boards have some mixing zone provisions in their Basin

Plans, and none of the Regional Water Boards specifically prohibit mixing zones.

Where a mixing zone is authorized under these policies for bacteria objectives, WQBELs are

calculated by multiplying the water quality standard by the authorized dilution credit. Where

dilution is not authorized, effluent limitations are calculated as end-of-pipe limitations—the

WQBEL is set equal to the applicable objective.

3.2.2 Reference System/Antidegradation Approach and Natural Sources Exclusion Approach

The proposed Policy includes methods for accounting for natural sources of bacteria which

implementing bacteria water quality standards in a TMDL addressing municipal storm water and

nonpoint source discharges (other than on-site wastewater treatment system discharges).

Regional Water Boards may account for natural sources of bacteria by developing TMDLs that

utilize two alternative approaches: a Reference System/Antidegradation Approach or a Natural

Sources Exclusion approach.

In the context of TMDL development to attain bacteria water quality objectives, the Reference

System/Antidegradation Approach has two implementation goals:

1. Bacteriological water quality is at least as good as that of a natural reference system, and

2. No degradation of existing water quality is allowed, where it is better than the natural

system.

Under this approach, the exceedance frequency of the bacteria objective’s STV may be tailored

to match the exceedance frequency in a selected reference system or the targeted waterbody,

whichever is less.

The Natural Source Exclusion Approach requires the control of all anthropogenic sources of

bacteria and the identification and quantification of natural sources of bacteria. If a TMDL

utilizes the natural sources exclusion approach, all anthropogenic sources of bacteria must be

identified and controlled to ensure those sources of bacteria do not cause or contribute to an

exceedance of the applicable bacteria objective’s STV. A certain frequency of exceedance of the

STV is permitted based on the residual exceedance frequency at a specific water body. The

residual exceedance frequency is defined based on the background level of exceedance due to

natural sources.

3.2.3 Alternative REC-1 Beneficial Use Designations

The proposed Policy includes several alternative designations which Regional Water Boards may

implement when REC-1 uses may not be appropriate or attainable at all times. These include a

high flow suspension, seasonal use designations, a limited use designation, and variances from

water quality standards.

3.2.3.1 High Flow Suspension of the REC-1 Beneficial Use

In California, the “swimmable” goal expressed in section 101(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act is

classified by the REC-1 beneficial use. When such activities are not safe due to high water flows

June 2017

3-4

or high water velocity in a water body designated for REC-1 beneficial use protection, the

applicable water quality objective for bacteria is not needed to attain or maintain the use.

A Regional Water Board may adopt a high flow suspension of the REC-1 beneficial use as an

alternative to reclassifying a water body or segment thereof to apply a less stringent water quality

objective for bacteria. The high flow suspension may reflect when waters are considered unsafe

for recreational water contact activities during high flow or high-velocity conditions.

If a high flow suspension is being considered, the Regional Water Board must conduct a use

attainability analysis as defined and described in 40 CFR §131.3(g) and 131.10(g), respectively,

if the high flow suspension of the REC-1 beneficial use results in a less stringent water quality

objective for bacteria. The Regional Water Board’s adoption of a high flow suspension of the

REC-1 beneficial use is subject to U.S. EPA review and approval.

3.2.3.2 Seasonal Use of the Rec-1 Beneficial Use

A Regional Water Board may adopt a seasonal use of the REC-1 beneficial use as an alternative

to reclassifying a water body or segment thereof to require a less stringent water quality

objective for bacteria. The seasonal use of the REC-1 beneficial use may reflect low water flows

or temperatures or conditions that freeze water. If a seasonal use is adopted, the water quality

objective for bacteria should be adjusted to reflect the seasonal use, however, such water quality

objective shall not preclude the attainment and maintenance of a more protective use in another

season.

If a seasonal use alteration is being considered, the Regional Water Board must conduct a use

attainability analysis as defined and described in in 40 CFR §131.3(g) and 131.10(g),

respectively, if the seasonal use of the REC-1 beneficial use requires a less stringent water

quality objective for bacteria. The Regional Water Board’s adoption of a seasonal use of the

REC-1 beneficial use is subject to U.S. EPA review and approval.

3.2.3.3 Limited Water Contact Recreation (LREC-1) Designation

A Regional Water Board may designate a water body or water body segment(s) with the Limited

Water Contact Recreation (LREC-1) beneficial use.

Limited Water Contact Recreation (LREC-1): Uses of water that support limited

recreational activities involving body contact with water, where the activities are

predominantly limited by physical conditions such as very shallow water depth or

restricted access and, as a result, body contact with water and ingestion of water is

infrequent or insignificant.

The Regional Water Board must conduct a use attainability analysis as defined and described in

40 CFR §131.3(g) and 131.10(g), respectively, if the Regional Water Board wishes to replace a

designated REC-1 beneficial use with the LREC-1 beneficial use and the LREC-1 beneficial use

requires a less stringent water quality objective for bacteria than that applicable to the previously

applicable REC-1 use.

June 2017

3-5

3.2.4 Water Quality Standards Variances

U.S. EPA’s water quality standards regulations establish an explicit regulatory framework for the

adoption of a water quality standards variance. States may use a variance to implement adaptive

management approaches to improve water quality (40 C.F.R. § 131.14).

Under the proposed Policy, Regional Water Boards may adopt a variance under the federal rule,

which provides:

1. A variance may be adopted on a case-by-case basis, is subject to public participation

requirements applicable to the revision of a water quality standard, and is subject to U.S.

U.S. EPA review and approval.

2. A variance may be adopted for a permittee(s) or water body/waterbody segment(s) but

only applies to the permittee(s) or water body/waterbody segment specified in the

variance.

3. A variance from applicable water quality standards may be allowed in certain cases

where meeting the specific water quality objective is not currently attainable. A variance

from a water quality objective will be allowed for temporary non-attainment of water

quality standards due to one or more of the reasons listed in 40 CFR §131.10 (use-

attainability factors).

4. A variance from a water quality objective shall be for the specific pollutant(s) and time-

limited. Variances are to be adopted instead of removing a designated beneficial use for

a water body where such use is not now attainable but can be expected to be attainable

with reasonable progress towards improving water quality. Accordingly, the underlying

beneficial use and water quality objective addressed by the variance shall be retained

unless the Regional Water Board adopts and U.S. EPA approves a revision to the

underlying water quality standard. All other applicable water quality standards not

specifically addressed by the variance remain applicable.

5. A variance, once adopted and approved by U.S. EPA, shall be the applicable water

quality standard for the limited purpose of developing NPDES permit limits and

requirements under section 301(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act and for certifications

issued under section 401 of the Clean Water Act. A variance may not be adopted if the

beneficial use and water quality objective addressed in the variance can be achieved by

implementing technology-based effluent limits required under section 301(b) and 306 of

the Clean Water Act.

June 2017

4-6

4 Estimated Compliance

This section contains an evaluation of attainment of the water quality objectives based on

available discharge data and the potential impacts to dischargers of bacteria.

4.1 Incrementally Impaired Waters

In order to determine how the proposed Policy may affect the impairment status of water quality

segments, the listing status of waterbodies were assessed using the proposed water quality

standards for bacteria. Using surface water monitoring data retrieved from the California

Environmental Data Exchange Network (CEDEN), State Water Board staff performed an

analysis of the incremental impairment status of state waterbodies (SWRCB, 2017).

The procedure utilized by State Water Board staff entailed use of simplified, conservative

procedure for computing six-week rolling geometric means and single sample maximums on an

individual water quality segment basis. Surface water data utilized in the analysis spanned

approximately 10 years and dated from October 2000 through September 2010.

Calculated geomeans and single-sample maximums were compared to the freshwater 1986 U.S.

EPA REC-1 criteria and to the Ocean Plan REC-1 objectives to determine baseline 303(d) listing

assignments. Although many Regional Water Boards vary in their assignment of indicator type

and objectives, for the purposes of this analysis State Board Staff elected to use the 1986 criteria

to simplify and clarify the analysis. In principle, the Regional Water Board REC-1 freshwater

objectives maintain a consistent level of stringency with the 1986 U.S. EPA recommended

criteria.

Of a total of 229 freshwater and marine waterbodies analyzed, 90 indicated possible impairments

possibly justifying 303(d) list impairments. Under the Policy scenario, 91 waterbodies

demonstrated possible impairments, resulting in a net incremental impairment of one waterbody.

Given 90 baseline impairments and 1 incremental impairment (i.e., ~1.1% relative to baseline),

we developed an estimate of incremental impairments based on the current 2012 303(d) list. If

incremental impairments result in a 1% increase in the number of impaired waterbodies, then

approximately 9 net additional impaired waterbodies may be expected under the Policy scenario.

If an additional number of TMDLs are needed under the revised criteria, there may be an

increase in government regulatory costs. U.S. EPA (2001b) estimates that TMDL development

costs per water body typically range from under $26,000 to over $500,0003 depending on the

number of TMDLs, the level of complexity, and the extent to which impaired waters are

clustered together for TMDL development.4

3 Not updated from original dollar years (2000$).

4 U.S. EPA (2001) anticipates that in the future, states will increasingly adopt efficient practices when developing TMDLs,

thus potentially reducing develop costs.

June 2017

4-7

4.2 Municipal and Industrial Wastewater

The proposed Policy will only have incremental impacts on wastewater treatment facilities where

existing, baseline bacteria WQBELs are less stringent than WQBELs which would be

implemented under the proposed Policy. To assess these incremental impacts, Abt compared

existing effluent limitations for existing non-storm water, point source permittees authorized to

discharge in California (as documented in Section 2.2.1), and compared these WQBELs to limits

under the Policy scenario.

Existing bacteria WQBELs under the baseline scenario vary both in terms of formulation of their

limitations (i.e., in terms of the magnitude and averaging period) and in terms of the indicator

parameter used. In addition, the parameter indicators utilized in baseline effluent limitations

often differ from the indicator bacteria stipulated under the proposed Policy (e.g., total coliform

limitations under baseline, and enterococcus limitations under the proposed Policy). Given the

difficulty in making direct comparisons based on monitoring data between effluent limitation

sets specified using different indicator parameter, Abt assumed that all wastewater treatment

plants are currently in compliance with baseline effluent limitation. Under this assumption,

baseline compliance costs of municipal and industrials NPDES dischargers are, by definition,

zero. This is a conservative assumption since it biases estimates of net incremental costs of the

Policy upward.

In order to allow for direct comparison with the Policy scenario, baseline and Policy WQBELs

were compared based on the stringency of their design condition. For example, the proposed

REC-1 objectives are designed based on an illness rate of 32 illnesses per 1,000 primary contact

recreators. When baseline limitations were based on human health standards or an equivalent

design illness rate, it was assumed that no incremental impact existed for the facility. Many of

the baseline, existing REC-1 objectives (Exhibit 2-1) are based on the 1976 or 1986 U.S. EPA

recommended criteria which were designed on the basis of an illness rate which are nominally

equivalent to the illness rate on which the proposed objectives are based (i.e., 32 illnesses per

1,000 contact recreators). When the baseline illness rate was less stringent than 32 per 1,000

primary contact recreators level, it was assumed that a potential impact existed for permittees

possessing limits based on the less stringent level.

In order to identify incremental impacts under the Policy, Abt reviewed all pathogen limitations

currently contained in California NPDES permits, as documented in U.S. EPA’s ICIS-NPDES

DMR Loading Tool5. Abt identified plants with limitations which were established on either of

the following circumstances:

California objectives based on U.S. EPA’s 1976 or 1986 REC-1 which were based on an

illness rate nominally consistent with the Proposed objectives; or

California human health objectives which are more stringent than the proposed

objectives.

5 Source: https://echo.epa.gov/tools/data-downloads/icis-npdes-dmr-and-limit-data-set; Retrieved 5/25/2017

https://echo.epa.gov/tools/data-downloads/icis-npdes-dmr-and-limit-data-set

June 2017

4-8

Plants with limitations which arose from either of the preceding circumstances were assumed to

possess baseline limits at least as stringent proposed objectives and, therefore, Policy compliance

costs were assumed to be zero since no technological changes or substantial operational changes

would be necessary.

All other facilities, which were identified as potentially possessing effluent limitations less

stringent than the proposed objectives, are summarized in Exhibit 4-1. All identified facilities

were municipal treatment plants discharging to marine or estuarine waters—no industrial

permittees or dischargers to freshwaters were identified as having a potential incremental impact.

Five randomly selected plants were assessed for incremental compliance levels under the

baseline, existing limitations and under the Policy scenario (Appendix B). The representative

sample frame plants represent 17% of the total number of plants with potential incremental

impacts (i.e., those listed in Exhibit 4-1) and 21% of the total design capacity.

Exhibit 4-1. NPDES Permittees Likely to Receive More Stringent Effluent Limitations

Under the Proposed Policy.

NPDES Permit

Name Major/Minor Design

Capacity (MGD)

Receiving Water

CA0037702 EAST BAY MUD MAIN WWTP Major 120 Central San Francisco

Bay

CA0037869 EBDA COMMON OUTFALL Major 107.8 Lower San Francisco

Bay

CA0037664 CCSF- SOUTHEAST WATER

POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT1 Major 85.4

San Francisco Bay, Islais Creek, Mission Creek

CA0037648 CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA WWTF Major 53.8 Suisun Bay

CA0038539 WEST COUNTY AGENCY

COMMON OUTFALL Major 41

Central San Francisco Bay

CA0037621 SUNNYVALE WATER POLLUTION

CONTROL PLANT Major 40

Moffett Channel, South San Francisco Bay

CA0048216 WATSONVILLE WWTF Major 36 Pacific Ocean,

Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary

CA0038369 SOUTH BAYSIDE SYSTEM

AUTHORITY WWTP Major 29

Lower San Francisco Bay

CA0037711 SOUTHERN MARIN WWTP Major 24.7 Raccoon Strait In


CA0037613 DUBLIN-SAN RAMON WWTF Major 23.9 Lower San Francisco

Bay

CA0038091 BENICIA WWTP Major 18 Carquinez Strait

June 2017

4-9

Exhibit 4-1. NPDES Permittees Likely to Receive More Stringent Effluent Limitations

Under the Proposed Policy.

NPDES Permit

Name Major/Minor Design

Capacity (MGD)

Receiving Water

CA0037788 BURLINGAME WWTP Major 16 Lower San Francisco

Bay

CA0037541 SAN MATEO WWTF1

Major 15.7 Lower San Francisco

Bay

CA0038130 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO-SAN

BRUNO Major 13


CA0038628 CENTRAL MARIN SAN. AGENCY

WWTF Major 10


CA0037532 MILLBRAE WPCP Major 9 Lower San Francisco

Bay

CA0038008 CITY OF LIVERMORE SEWAGE

TREATMENT PLANT Major 8.5


CA0037958 NOVATO WWTP Major 7 San Pablo Bay

CA0038067 SAUSALITO-MARIN WWTP Major 6 Central San Francisco

Bay

CA0038318 SFIA, MEL LEONG SANITARY AND INDUSTRIAL TREATMENT PLANTS

Major 3.4 Lower San Francisco

Bay

CA0037753 SD NO. 5 OF MARIN COUNTY

WWTP1 Minor 2.3

Raccoon Strait In Central San Francisco

Bay

CA0110116 TREASURE ISLAND WWTF Major 2 Central San Francisco

Bay

CA0048151 PISMO BEACH WWTF1

Major 1.9 Pacific Ocean

CA0047899 MONTECITO SD WWTP Major 1.5 Pacific Ocean

CA0048828 SCOTTS VALLEY WWTP Major 1.5 Pacific Ocean

(Monterey Bay Nat Marine Sanctuary)

CA0037826 RODEO SANITARY DISTRICT Major 1.14 San Pablo Bay

CA0047961 SAN SIMEON ACRES WWTF Minor 0.45 Arroyo Del Padre Juan

CA0037427 PARADISE COVE WWTP Minor 0.04 San Francisco Bay

CA0037885 PORT COSTA WWTP Minor 0.033 Carquinez Strait

Total Design Capacity = 679.063 --

1. Sample frame plants (see Section 5.1). Total sample frame design capacity is 145.3 MGD.

June 2017

4-10

As stated above, Abt assumed that the potentially affected regulated entities already comply with

the existing regulations to avoid double counting the cost of already existing rules. Thus, we

estimated the incremental cost from the baseline irrespective of the entities’ current ability to

comply or not with existing regulations and policies. Effectively, this conservative assumption

results in zero baseline costs for the potentially affected plants other than for monitoring.

The most recent three years of available effluent monitoring data (2014 – 2016) for bacteria

indicators was then obtained from U.S. EPA’s ICIS-NPDES DMR Loading Tool6, and the ability

of each sample facility to comply with the policy-scenario limitations was assessed. When a

dilution credit was authorized in the existing NPDES permit, it was assumed that an equivalent

credit would be authorized under the proposed Policy scenario.

Of the five permittees in the sample population under the Policy scenario, San Mateo

(CA0037541) demonstrated potential non-compliance, and insufficient enterococcus data was

available to evaluate the compliance for Pismo Beach WWTF (CA0048151). On this basis, Abt

determined San Mateo may require additional control measures to meet the proposed bacteria

objectives.

4.3 NPDES Stormwater

Unlike municipal and industrial point sources, California typically does not require nonpoint

sources and municipal storm water dischargers to achieve numeric WQBELs. The regulatory

baseline for evaluating the potential impact of the proposed objectives includes some

requirements for nonpoint sources and storm water dischargers to implement BMPs and

wasteload allocations as part of TMDLs (see Section 2).

The proposed policy includes several designated use adjustments which may reduce incremental

impacts for permitted storm water dischargers. For instance, the high flow adjustment will in

many cases result in REC-1 standards being applicable only during low flow conditions when

bacterial loading may be lower. In addition, the policy allows for consideration of natural

background considerations and reference conditions when developing a new TMDL or adjusting

an existing one.

6 Source: https://echo.epa.gov/tools/data-downloads/icis-npdes-dmr-and-limit-data-set; Retrieved 5/25/2017


June 2017

5-1

5 Compliance Methods and Costs

This section describes available methods for compliance with the objectives, and the costs of

those methods.

5.1 Municipal and Industrial Wastewater

Several approaches can be taken to controlling discharges of bacteria in municipal and industrial

wastewater treatment facilities. Disinfection processes can be upgraded or adjusted to produce

the levels of bacteria inactivation necessary for compliance with the projected effluent limits

based on the proposed objectives. Process optimization usually involves process analysis and

process modifications. Process analysis is an investigation of the performance limiting factors of

the treatment process, and is a key factor in achieving optimum treatment efficiency.

Performance limiting factors for chlorination may include operator training, response to changes

in wastewater quality, treatment efficiency of other individual treatment units, maintenance

activities, automation, and process control testing. The cost of process analysis includes the cost

of additional monitoring throughout the treatment process, and a treatment performance

evaluation.

Process modifications include activities short of adding new treatment technology units

(conventional or unconventional) to the treatment train. For chlorination, process modifications

might include adjusting the chlorine dose, improving mixing conditions (e.g., addition of baffles

to chlorine contract chamber to increase or improve contact time efficiency), increasing contact

time (e.g., adding a contact basin), equalizing flow, training operators, and installing automation

equipment including necessary hardware and software. Several months of adjustments may be

needed to achieve a desired level of process optimization due to potential difficulties (e.g.,

synchronizing chlorine dose with varied levels of pollutant concentrations such as biochemical

oxygen demand, total suspended solids, and flow).

In determining the necessary controls, we considered the relative magnitude of the maximum and

median observed monitoring values and pathogen limitations under the proposed Policy.

5.1.1 Control Costs

Based on evaluation of the sample facilities, we estimated costs for process optimization and

effluent monitoring for bacteria.

5.1.1.1 Process Optimization

The cost of process optimization can be estimated using available estimates from the literature.

For most of the facilities, the specific information regarding the chlorination process, such as

chlorine dose used, volume of contact chamber, contact time, mixing conditions, type of chlorine

used, or maintenance procedures is not readily available. Therefore, we assumed that, on

average, facilities are operating at a minimal treatment level [e.g., 4 mg/L chlorine dose, 15

minute average contact time, poor mixing, cleaning once every two years (Metcalf and Eddy,

1991)].

June 2017

5-2

We estimated that process analysis would consist of a four-week study of the facility’s treatment

processes, including monitoring the wastewater at different stages throughout the treatment

plant, and determining the process modifications necessary. Based on the average labor rate in

California for an environmental engineer [$60 per hour, which includes employer benefits (BLS,

2005a; 2005b; 2004)], process analysis costs may be approximately $9,600 (160 hours ×

$60/hour).

Process modification costs may include additional chlorine and chlorine storage facilities,

cleaning contact basins, installing of baffles to assist mixing in the contact basin, and increasing

contact time, depending on current treatment performance. We calculated these costs for the

sample facilities based on average flows.

In modifying their chlorination process, staff estimated that facilities would increase their

chlorine dose to 8 mg/L (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). The additional amount of chlorine needed in

pounds per year equals the difference in dose, 4 mg/L (8 mg/L - 4 mg/L = 4 mg/L) times the

average flow in mgd, number of days in a year (365), and a conversion factor (8.34 to convert

from mg/L to lbs/million gallons). Facilities using more than 8,000 lbs/year of chlorine would

most likely use 1-ton cylinders of chlorine, and facilities using less than 8,000 lbs/year would use

150-lb cylinders of chlorine. Storage space for the additional chlorine would also be needed. To

calculate the storage area, we estimated that a large cylinder would have an area of 150 square

feet, and a small cylinder would have an area of 50 square feet, and multiplied this area by the

additional number of cylinders that would need to be stored in a given time period (e.g., per

week, per month, or per quarter).

As another component of modifying their chlorination process, we estimated that facilities would

need to clean their contact basins twice per year, instead of once every two years. Facilities over

20 mgd are assumed to require 6 labor hours per mgd, and facilities less than or equal to 20 mgd

would require 15 labor hours per mgd. However, based on best professional judgment, we

assumed that cleaning would not take more than 400 labor hours at a time (e.g., 4 employees

working full time for 2.5 weeks). The California-specific average labor rate for a water and

liquid waste treatment plant and system operator, which includes employer benefits, is $39 per

hour (BLS, 2005c; 2005d; 2004).

We also estimated that modifications would include increasing chlorine contact time (CT).

Facilities can increase CT by expanding the size of their contact basin. To estimate the

incremental contact basin costs, the staff assumed that the CT, based on treating the average

flow, would increase from 15 minutes to 30 minutes (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). We assumed a

length to width ratio for the contact basin of 20, a depth of 10 feet, and a freeboard of 3 feet. The

following equation calculates the additional basin volume necessary:

Volume = (CT2 – CT1) x QAvg

where,

CT1 = current contact time (15 min)

CT2 = projected contact time (30 min)

June 2017

5-3

Qavg = average flow (ft3/min).

The additional concrete volume need for the expanded basin is based on the dimensions of the

basin (e.g., width to length ratio of 20 and depth of 10 feet), assuming a wall thickness of 1 foot.

Finally, we estimated that facilities would install baffles to improve mixing conditions. Each

baffle would be spaced about every 3 feet along the length of the basin and would be 1 foot wide.

We used the dimensions of the basin after the increase in contact time, minus 3 feet on the length

to allow for water to flow into the next baffle channel, to calculate the surface area of the baffles.

For example, a contact basin that is about 20 feet wide by 400 feet long and 10 feet deep would

need about 4 baffles [(20-3)/4=4]. The surface area of one of those baffles is 3,970 square feet

[(400-3)×10 = 3,970].

The estimated process modification costs include both capital and operation and maintenance

(O&M) costs. Exhibit 5-1 summarizes the type of costs associated with each component, and the

source of the cost estimates.

Exhibit 5-1. Process Modification Cost Components Modification Capital ($2005)1 O&M ($2005)1 Source

Increase chlorine dose Additional chlorine storage space: $/sq. ft. = Area-0.110548×$163.91

Additional chlorine: $1,700/1-ton cylinder $370/150-lb cylinder

AACE (2002); Kuehne Chemical (2002); Roberts

Oxygen (2002) Increase maintenance NA Additional labor to clean

basins: $39/hour BLS (2004; 2005c;

2005d) Improve mixing Installation of baffles in chlorination

contact basin: $48/sq. ft. of baffle2 NA Environetics Inc (2003)

Increase contact time Additional contact basins: $460/cu. yd. of concrete

NA RS Means (2005)

sq. ft. = square foot cu. yd. = cubic yard 1. Costs escalated to 2016 dollars using the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index and the Employment Cost Index. Capital and O&M unit costs for increasing chlorine dose are escalated from 2002 dollars. Capital costs for improvements in mixing are escalated from 2003 dollars. 2. Includes installation cost equal to 30% of baffle cost.

Appendix C summarizes the process modification design values for plants in the sample

population with process modifications needed to comply with the proposed Policy. Under the

Policy, only one plant of the five, the San Mateo WWTP, is anticipated to require process

modifications. . Exhibit 5-2 summarizes capital and optimization & maintenance (O&M) costs,

on an annualized basis, for the San Mateo WWTP.

Exhibit 5-2. Summary of Sample Annualized Process Modification Costs

Plant NPDES No. Annualized Costs ($/year; 20 years; 2016$)


Proposed Policy Controls

San Mateo WWTP CA0037541 $200,000 $211,000

June 2017

5-4

5.1.1.2 Effluent Monitoring

The level of effort (i.e., frequency of sampling) for a given parameter is unlikely to change

appreciably due to adoption of the proposed Policy. However, since only one indicator parameter

must be monitored under the Policy, the overall level of effort is likely to decrease relative to

baseline.

In order to estimate this effect, we selected two POTWs subject to the Ocean Plan and two

POTWs discharging to inland surface waters and computed the difference in sampling effort

under the two scenarios. Monitoring effort for pathogens is dependent on the type of facility and

the types of limitations imposed, but is unlikely to be related to compliance feasibility or the size

of the facility.

Exhibit 5-3 displays typical unit sampling costs for E. coli, fecal coliform, total coliform, and

enterococcus. We based monitoring frequencies on bacteria monitoring requirements in existing

permits, or weekly monitoring if bacteria monitoring is not currently required.

Exhibit 5-3. Sample Monitoring Costs for E. coli, Fecal Coliform, and Total Coliform

(2016$)

E. coli Fecal

Coliform Total

Coliform Enterococcus Source

$23 $42 $33* -- Patel (2006) $59 $52* $52* -- BioVir Laboratories (2004)

$48 $53 $71 -- Baker (2006) $29 $29 $29 -- EMSL Analytical, Inc. (2004)

$56* $57* $57* -- Sierra Environmental Monitoring,

Inc. (2006)

-- -- -- $53 - $80 SWRCB (2011) $43 $47 $49 $67 Average

* Represent an average cost across various analytical methods.

Pacific Ocean Permittees: The Pismo Beach WWTF (CA0048151) monitors for total coliform

1/week and fecal coliform 5/week, resulting in an estimated total annual monitoring cost of

$14,700 for pathogens under baseline. Under the proposed policy, we assumed weekly

monitoring for enterococcus which results in an annual estimate cost of $3,500. The Avalon

WWTP (CA0054372) monitors for total coliform 1/week, fecal coliform 1/week, and

enterococcus 1/month; resulting in an estimated annual monitoring cost of $5,800. Under policy,

this cost drops to approximately $3,500 assuming 1/week enterococcus monitoring.

Inland Surface Water Permittees: The Chester WWTP (CA0077747) monitors total coliform

organisms 1/week, resulting in an estimated baseline, annual monitoring cost of $2,500.

Assuming 1/week monitoring for E. coli under the proposed policy, annual costs are $2,300. The

Redway WWTF (CA0022781) monitors total coliform bacteria 1/week under the baseline

scenario, resulting in an annual cost of $2,500. Assuming 1/week monitoring for E. coli under

the proposed policy, annual costs are $2,300.

Based on this sample, the average anticipated cost savings for municipal wastewater treatment

plants for bacteria monitoring is anticipated to be approximately $3,500 per year (Exhibit 5-4).

June 2017

5-5

Extrapolating this to the total population of sanitary sewage works (i.e., 224 POTWs + federally-

owned plants treating domestic wastewater), the incremental savings associated with monitoring

costs is estimated at approximately $789,000 per year (note that presented sample costs are

rounded and all calculations were performed with exact values).

Exhibit 5-4. Average Monitoring Costs Summary

Permittee Baseline Cost

($/year)1

Proposed Policy Cost ($/year)1

Net Cost ($/year)1

Pismo Beach WWTF $14,700 $3,500 - $11,200

Avalon WWTP $5,800 $3,500 - $2,300

Chester WWTP $2,500 $2,300 - $280

Redway WWTP $2,500 $2,300 - $280

Average $6,400 $2,900 - $3,500 1. Rounded cost values. Negative net costs indicate an anticipated cost savings under the policy relative to baseline.

Monitoring for pathogens is less common at industrial facilities than at POTWs; however, it is

anticipated that the policy would produce a similar reduction in monitoring effort for plants

possessing bacteria limitations. Due to a greater variability in monitoring levels at industrial

plants, estimating a supportable total incremental monitoring cost for industrial plants is not

feasible at this time. Therefore, this analysis conservatively assumes a that the incremental

impact associated with industrial point source monitoring is zero.

5.2 NPDES Stormwater

Under the Policy, storm water permittees would have broadly similar requirements as compared

to the baseline scenario. While general pollution prevention and minimization is required under

existing NPDES permits, programs specifically targeting bacteria are not a baseline requirement

unless an implementation plan for a TMDL requires one. As shown in Section 2.2.2 and

Appendix A, many of the existing MS4s are required to implement control programs designed to

control pollutants of concern within their discharge, including bacteria, and some dischargers

possess specific numeric action levels for bacteria more stringent than the proposed objectives.

Sufficient data to perform an incremental compliance cost analysis is not available at this time

for NPDES storm water permittees. The variety of receiving waters, discharge conditions, and

the highly site-specific nature of storm water controls preclude the calculation of control costs or

a quantitative assessment of incremental impacts due to the proposed policy. However, it is

likely that, due to the implementation procedures contained in the proposed policy, it is possible

incremental costs will be relatively low.

The proposed policy includes several designated use adjustments which may reduce compliance

costs for permitted storm water dischargers. For instance, the high flow adjustment will in many

cases result in REC-1 standards being applicable only during low flow conditions when bacterial

loading may be lower. In addition, the policy allows for consideration of natural background

considerations and reference conditions when developing a new TMDL or adjusting an existing

one. These implementation procedures could result in a decreased incremental control cost in

June 2017

5-6

situations where baseline load reductions exceed those required when these implementation

provisions are considered.

June 2017

6-1

6 Statewide Costs

This section provides descriptions of the methods we used to estimate incremental statewide

costs associated with the proposed Policy options and results.

6.1 Point Sources

Statewide process modification costs were estimated by scaling the costs for the sample

population to that of the set of plants identified as having potential incremental increments (see

Section 4.2) under the Policy. These costs, and incremental costs associated with changes in

monitoring, are presented in 2016 dollars and have been annualized over a 20-year project

horizon (Exhibit 6-1).

Exhibit 6-1. Statewide Policy Compliance Costs (2016$)

Scenario Annualized Costs ($/year; 20 years)


Disinfection Modification Costs $935,000 $988,000

Monitoring Costs - $789,000 - $789,000

Total Net Costs $146,000 $199,000

Statewide disinfection process modification costs were developed based on an extrapolation of

the sample frame costs to the total population of potentially affected facilities, as discussed in

Section 4.2, and as follows:

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑥 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦

Where, the design capacity ratio is equal to 679 MGD / 145.3 MGD, or 4.67.

The average anticipated cost savings for municipal wastewater treatment plants for bacteria

monitoring is anticipated to be approximately $3,500 per year per facility on average.

Extrapolating this to the total population of sanitary sewage works (i.e., POTWs + federally-

owned plants treating domestic wastewater), the incremental savings associated with monitoring

costs is estimated at approximately $789,000 per year.

Monitoring for pathogens is less common at industrial facilities than at POTWs; however, it is

anticipated that the policy would produce a similar reduction in monitoring effort for plants

possessing bacteria limitations. Due to a greater variability in monitoring levels at industrial

plants, estimating a supportable total incremental monitoring cost for industrial plants is not

feasible at this time. Therefore, this analysis conservatively assumes a that the incremental

impact associated with industrial point source monitoring is zero.

6.2 Nonpoint Sources

Costs for compliance with baseline criteria include costs to regulated stormwater sources and

other nonpoint sources associated with implementation of existing programs and TMDLs.

June 2017

6-2

Incremental costs associated with compliance with the potential revised criteria represent the

costs of any actions or controls above and beyond those needed to meet baseline requirements.

Abt did not estimate incremental costs for nonpoint sources for this analysis; however, if

nonpoint sources are the primary source of the pollutants of concern, control of nonpoint sources

could result in less stringent limitations and lower costs than estimated for point sources. For

situations in which controls beyond those required under the baseline are necessary, controls

could include the development and implementation of TMDLs.

6.3 Limitations and Uncertainties

There are a number of uncertainties and limitations associated with the data and methods we

used to estimate the potential incremental costs of the proposed Policy. Exhibit 6-2 provides a

summary of these uncertainties and the potential impact on the cost estimates.

Exhibit 6-2: Summary of Limitations and Uncertainties of the Analysis

Assumption/Uncertainty Potential Impact on

Costs Explanation

Assumed weekly monitoring under the policy scenario—Regional Water Boards could elect to require monitoring at greater frequencies.

+

Regional Water Boards have discretion when establishing level of effort associated with monitoring. While weekly monitoring for pathogens is common in California, some permittees will be assigned monitoring frequencies which vary from this level.

Compliance control costs for storm water not estimated

?

If additional controls are required for some dischargers, costs could increase. However, the Policy includes several mechanisms for adjusting the beneficial uses of the waterbody and accounting for natural/background levels of bacteria and reduce the level of control required.

Key: “+” = potential costs likely overestimated “-“ = potential costs likely underestimated “?” = impact on cost unknown

June 2017

7-1

7 References

American Association of Cost Engineers (AACE). 2002. International Parametric Cost

Estimating Model for Buildings. Online at

http://www.aacei.org/technical/costmodels/BuildingModel.shtml#MODEL

Baker, Mark. 2006. CRG Marine Laboratories. Personal communication. April.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2005a. Table 5. Wages and Salaries (not seasonally adjusted):

Employment Cost Index for wages and salaries, civilian and State and local government workers,

by industry and occupational group, Civilian workers. Online at

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.t05.htm.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2005b. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation. Table

2. Civilian workers, by occupational and industry group, Professional and related. Online at

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t02.htm.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2005c. Table 5. Wages and Salaries (not seasonally adjusted):

Employment Cost Index for wages and salaries, civilian and State and local government workers,

by industry and occupational group, Blue collar. Online at

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.t05.htm.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2005d. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation. Table

2. State and local government, by occupational and industry group, Professional and related.

Online at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t02.htm.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2004. State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates,

California. Online at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_ca.htm.

Environetics Inc. 2003. Personal communication with Mark Pannell, May 2003.

Kuehne Chemical Company. 2002. Personal communication, June 2002.

Metcalf and Eddy. 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse, 3rd

Ed.

Patel, Versha. 2006. Applied Microbiological Services. Personal communication. April.

RS Means. 2005. Heavy Construction Cost Data.

Roberts Oxygen. 2002. Personal communication, June 2002.

Sierra Environmental Monitoring, Inc. 2006. Price List. Online at http://www.sem-

analytical.com/pricelist.htm.

http://www.aacei.org/technical/costmodels/BuildingModel.shtml#MODEL

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.t05.htm

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t02.htm

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.t05.htm

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t02.htm

http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/sp/ncbl0552.pdf

http://www.sem-analytical.com/pricelist.htm

http://www.sem-analytical.com/pricelist.htm

June 2017

7-2

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 1999. Memorandum (undated) from Sheila

Vassey to Stefan Lorenzato, entitled “Economic Considerations in TMDL Development and

Basin Planning”.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 1994. Memorandum, dated January 4, 1994,

from William R. Attwater, Chief Counsel, to Regional Water Board Executive Officers and

Attorneys, entitled “Guidance on Consideration of Economics in the Adoption of Water Quality

Objectives”.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2015. 2012 303(d) List. Online at

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2012.shtml.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2017. Personal communication. March.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2017. ICIS-NPDES Database.

Data for California permittees. <https://echo.epa.gov/tools/data-downloads/icis-npdes-dmr-and-

limit-data-set>

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2001. The National Costs of the

Total Maximum Daily Load Program (Draft Report). EPA 841-D-01-003. August.



June 2017

A-1

Appendix A. Phase I MS4 Permit Requirements

Exhibit A-1: Permit Requirements and SWMP Activities Specific to Bacteria for Phase I

MS4s in California MS4 Name

(NPDES No.) Affected Water

Bodies Permit Requirements and SWMP Activities

Region 1 – Santa Rosa, Sonoma County NPDES: CA0025054

Santa Rosa Creek, Laguna de Santa Rosa (Laguna), Mark West Creek, Lower Russian River

No specific bacteria requirements in monitoring or TMDL.

Permittees must develop and implement a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan. The plan addresses erosion reduction, runoff control, and flow.

Develop and implement Best Management Practices (BMP), structural and non-structural to address stormwater runoff.

Develop and implement a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) that includes addressing illicit discharges and illicit connections as well as dumping and animal waste disposal.

The Permittee must develop and implement an industrial/commercial facilities program that includes a source control BMPs, educational outreach and inspection.

Region 2 – San Francisco Bay Region, 77 Permittees NPDES (CAS612008)

San Francisco Bay Region Watershed, 6 Regions of Permittees

Requires the development and implementation of municipal operations that’s that ensure development and implementation of appropriate BMPs by all permittees to control and reduce non-stormwater discharges and polluted stormwater to storm drains.

Require routine repair and maintenance activities of BMPs.

Implement and enforce an Industrial and Commercial Site Controls program.

Implement and enforce an illicit discharge detection and elimination program.

Requires monitoring of pathogen indicators once a year during the summer.

Region 3 - City of Salinas NPDES: CA0049981

City of Salinas, Salinas River, Old Salinas River, and Monterey Bay

The permittees must require the use of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques on all new and redevelopment.



Decrease impervious areas.

The lower Salinas River Watershed has a TMDL for Fecal Coliform concentration based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period shall not exceed a log mean of 200 MPN/100mL nor shall more than ten percent of total samples during any 30 day period exceed 40 MPN/100mL.

Evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs in reduction violations of water quality standards.

Require daily street sweeping of roads must be performed.

Eliminate the use of fertilizer within 48-hours prior to a rain event and limits the used in general with no application occurring within five feet of pavement.

Develop and implement MS4 system operations and maintenance plan.

Within 12 months of the order effective date develop and submit a plan to decrease the pollutant loads including pathogen indicators.

Develop and implement a commercial and industrial program.

Perform dry weather screening using the Center for Watershed Protection IDDE Manual or an equivalent.

June 2017

A-2





Region 4 – Long Beach NPDES: CAS004003

LA River, San Gabriel River, Long Beach Harbor, and San Pedro Bay

At the time of the issuance of the permit the Permittee receiving water was pathogen bacteria impaired.

Implement pollution prevention measures and BMPs to minimize pollutants entering the stormwater including bacteria.

Prohibits discharges that cause a violation of water quality standards, including contributing to the bacteria impairment.

Develop and implement a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) that includes addressing illicit discharges and illicit connections as well as dumping and animal waste disposal.

The Permittee must report progress of implementation of the SWMP annually including the progress of implementation and noncompliance.

The Permittee is required to develop and implement a IDDE plan that prohibits illicit discharges, dumping or disposal or leaves, dirt or landscape materials.

The Permittee must modify the SWMP to comply with waste load allocations develops and approved in pursuant to TMDLs.

Region 4 – LA Region, LA and 84 incorporated Cities NPDES: CAS004001

Santa Monica Bay, Santa Clara River Watershed, Dominguez Channel and Greater Harbors Watershed management area, LA River, San Gabriel River, Los Cerritos Channel, Alamitos Bay, Middle Santa Ana River, Coverage area is 3000 square miles at time of last permit issuance.

At the time of the issuance of the permit the Permittee receiving water had a bacteria impairment and waste load allocations (WLA). Permittees with co-mingled MS4s are jointly responsible for meeting the WLA.

Permittees shall conduct a Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA) for each water body pollutant combination addressed by the Watershed Management Program. Permittees shall demonstrate using the RAA that the activities and control measures identified in the Watershed Control Measures will achieve applicable water quality based effluent limitations and/or receiving water limitations.

The Permittee develop and implement a watershed management program that addressee TMDLs, receiving water limitations.

Permittees subject to the Middle Santa Ana River Watershed Bacteria Indicator TMDL shall submit a Comprehensive Bacteria Reduction Plan (CBRP) for dry weather to the Regional Water Board Executive Office.

Implement pollution prevention measures and BMPs to minimize pollutants entering the stormwater including the treatment and removal of bacteria.

Prohibits discharges that cause a violation of water quality standards, including contributing to the bacteria impairment.

Implement monitoring for the Dry Weather Bacteria TMDL or exceedances of bacteria receiving water limitations or water quality based effluent limitations, demonstrate through a source investigation pursuant to protocols established under California Water Code.

June 2017

A-3





Region 4 – Ventura County and Incorporated Cities within NPDES: CAS004002

Ventura River, Santa Clara River, Calleguas Creek, Malibu Creek, and Miscellaneous Ventura Coastal

The Permittees must require the use of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques on all new and redevelopment.



Decrease impervious areas.


At the time of the permit issuance the receiving waters had a bacteria impairment.

Permittee is required to reduce bacteria contamination from septic systems.

Harbor Beaches of Ventura County have a bacteria TMDL, as well as Malibu Creek and Lagoon.

Bacteria targets are E.coli shall not have a geometric mean that exceeds 126/100 mg or 235/100mg in a single sample.

Fecal Coliform targets are not to exceed 200/100 for the geometric mean or 400/100 for a single sample.

Harbor Beaches of Ventura WLA for bacteria are from the Basin Plan.

The Permittee must perform both wet and dry weather sampling for bacteria.

The Permittee was required to develop and implement a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and in it address reduction of pollutants such as bacteria.

BMPs are required to treat or filter to remove bacteria sediments, nutrients, and meet the limitations set in the permit.

Region 5 – Cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, Galt, Rancho Cordova, Sacramento, and County of Sacramento NDPES: CAS082597

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

Develop and implement a Stormwater Quality Improvement Plan that includes joint programs that focus on target pollutant programs, monitoring programs, special studies, and regional public outreach. Additionally, each individual Permittee must include in their SQIP an illicit discharge program, commercial and industrial program, municipal operation program, planning and new development program, public outreach, washed stewardship program, and effective assessment and reporting.

Implement BMPs that reduce the discharges and improve surface water quality including bacteria, to the maximum extent practicable (MEP).

The monitoring program must incorporate analytical minimum levels (MLs) established under the State Board’s Policy or Implementation of Toxic Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (SIP).



Region 5 – County of Kern and City of Bakersfield (CA00883399)

Kern River, Valley Floor Waters

Develop and implement a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) that includes an illicit discharge program, commercial and industrial program, municipal operation program, planning and new development program, spill prevention, illegal dumping, system inspection, site planning procedures, education and training activities, leaking sanitary sewer lines, public outreach, washed stewardship program, and effective assessment and reporting.

City of Bakersfield requires that most new developments include retention basins designed to contain run-off produced by the 100-year, 24-hour storm event and capable of draining by percolation or evaporation within seven days.

June 2017

A-4





Region 5 – Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District, Cities of Fresno, Clovis, County of Fresno and California State University Fresno (CAS618036)

Approximately 130 basins received 90% of the stormwater. 8 percent goes to San Joaquin River or canals.

Develop and implement a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) that includes an illicit discharge program, commercial and industrial program, municipal operation program, planning and new development program, spill prevention, illegal dumping, system inspection, site planning procedures, education and training activities, leaking sanitary sewer lines, public outreach, washed stewardship program, and effective assessment and reporting.

Permittee must develop and implement a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for new and redevelopment. The plan must address BMPS that are required to reduce pollutants to the MEP.

Region 5 – East Contra Costa County including the Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, Costa County NPDES: CAS083313

Delta Waterways, Marsh Creek, San Joaquin River, Marsh Creek Reservoir, Sand Creek, Kellogg Creek

Marsh Creek, Sand Creek, and Kellogg Creek are listed as having E. coli as a pollutant/stressor and the Order requires that the permittee implement programs to reduce the level of pollutants in stormwater discharges to the MEP.

Require the development and implementation of municipal operations that’s that ensure development and implementation of appropriate BMPs by all permittees to control and reduce non-stormwater discharges and polluted stormwater to storm drains.





Requires monitoring of pathogen indicators once a year during the summer.

Region 5 – City of Modesto NPDES: CAS083526

Tuolumne River, San Joaquin River, Dry Creek

Develop and implement a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) that includes an illicit discharge program, commercial and industrial program, municipal operation program, planning and new development program, spill prevention, illegal dumping, system inspection, site planning procedures, education and training activities, public outreach, and effective assessment and reporting.

San Joaquin River and Dry Creek are listed as having E. coli as a pollutant/stressor and the Order requires that the permittee implement programs to reduce the level of pollutants in stormwater discharges to the MEP.

Require the development and implementation of municipal operations that’s that ensure development and implementation of appropriate BMPs by all permittees to control and reduce non-stormwater discharges and polluted stormwater to storm drains.



Monitoring is required to provide a baseline of waterbodies and meet needs for the Water Quality Programs.

Region 5 – City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin Service Area 54 NPDES: CAS083470

Limited term renewal of 6 months

Must comply with pathogen receiving water limitations based on public health standards.

June 2017

A-5





Region 5 – Stockton Port District

San Joaquin River, Tidally influenced.

Develop and implement a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) that includes an illicit and illegal discharges program, commercial and industrial program, municipal operation, construction, public education and outreach, Stormwater planning and development standards, baseline monitoring, water quality based programs, retention basin studies, and BMP effectiveness studies.


Not allow bacteria concentrations to be present that exceed criteria or threaten public health. The fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period, to exceed a geometric mean of 200/100 mL, nor more than ten percent of the total number of fecal coliform samples taken during any 30-day period to exceed 400/100 mL.

Retention Basin monitoring must include testing for bacteria. Monitoring shall occur during at least two wet seasons and two dry seasons within a five day period. Grab samples are required.

Region 6 – El Dorado County, Placer County, and City of South Lake Tahoe NPDES: CAG616001

Lake Tahoe

Develop and implement stormwater management plan (SWMP) that includes a construction component, commercial, industrial, municipal and residential component, inspection component, IDDE, new development and redevelopment, public education, and training.

The Lake Tahoe TMDL requires new development and re-development project proponents and private property retrofit efforts to first consider opportunities to infiltrate storm water runoff from impervious surfaces. At a minimum, permanent storm water infiltration facilities must be designed and constructed to infiltrate runoff generated by the 20 year, 1-hour storm, which equates to approximately one inch of runoff over all impervious surfaces during a 1-hour period.

Region 7 – Riverside County, incorporated Cities in Riverside County within the Whitewater River Basin NPDES: CAS617002

Whitewater River

Develop and implement a Whitewater River Region Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP).

Meet the WLA of a log mean (Geomean) of the MPN ≤126/100 ml (based on a minimum of not less than five samples during a 30-day period), or 400 MPN/100 ml for a single sample.

E.coli is listed as a pollutant of concern and pathogen indicator.

The Permittee is required to perform dry weather monitoring at four locations at least twice a year for E. coli as well as other pollutants of concern. Samples gathered can be either grab or composite.

The Permittee is required to perform wet weather testing at five locations at least twice a year for E.coli as well as other pollutants of concerns. Samples gathered can be either grab or composite.

The permittee is required to report annually on the effectiveness of BMPs.

Region 8 – San Bernardino County, 17 Co-permittees NPDES: CAS618036

Big Bear Lake, Santa Ana River basin

The Permittee is required to perform storm drain outfall monitoring, receiving water monitoring, and dry weather monitoring which includes Bacteria testing.

The Permittee is required to evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs.

Permittee must implement and fully adopt ordinances that would specify control measures for known pathogen or bacterial sources such as animal wastes.

Bacteria was listed as a priority pollutant of concern in the watershed based on findings from water quality monitoring efforts conducted during the previous permit term.

The Permittee must require LID BMP monitoring.

The highest priority of the stormwater plan is the reduction of bacterial contamination.

June 2017

A-6





Region 8 – County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and 26 incorporated Cities, NPDES: CAS618030

San Gabriel River, Huntington Harbor and Bolsa Bay, Santa Ana River, Newport Bay, Irvine and Newport Coastal Area.

Develop and implement a Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and a Local Implementation Plan (LIP).

At the time of the Permit development, the Permittee had performed or been part of studies that were attempting to ID sources of Bacteria, the studies were inconclusive.

The Permittee must meet WLA as specified in the TMDL.

New development and significant redevelopment must incorporate LID.

By December 30, 2019 in the Newport Bay, the waste load allocation for urban runoff, agricultural runoff, and natural sources is not to exceed a monthly Median less than 14 MPN/100 mL, and not more than 10% of the samples exceed 43 MPN/100 mL. Additionally, vessels are not allowed to discharge any fecal coliform.

To address the bacteria problems the Permittee can currently divert dry weather flows in some areas to the sanitary sewer.

Region 8 – Riverside County Flood Control and Water District Santa Ana Region and 15 incorporated Cities NPDES: CAS618033

Lake Elsinore, Canyon Cake, Santa Ana River, Cucamonga Creek, Prado Park Lake, Mill Creek

WLA for Fecal Coliform from Urban Sources for the Dry Season (April 1st through October 31st) 35 5-sample/30-day logarithmic mean less than 180 organisms/100mL and not more than 10% of the samples exceed 36 organisms/100mL for any 30-day period.

WLA for E. Coliform Urban Sources for the Dry Season (April 1st through October 31st) 36 5-sample/30-day logarithmic mean less than 113 organisms/100 mL and not more than 10% of the samples exceed 212 organisms/100mL for any 30-day period.

Develop and implement a Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and a Local Implementation Plan (LIP).

Two TMDL monitoring stations in the Santa Ana River Reach. Permittees must comply with the numeric Bacterial Indicator targets at the monitoring locations.

The Permittee must meet WLA for Bacteria Indicators.

Adopted an order to reduce concentration of Bacteria Indicator in Urban Sources.

Implement specific BMPs to reduce concentrations of Bacterial Indicators from Urban Sources and provide water quality improvements.

Perform specific inspection criteria to identify and manage the Urban Sources most likely causing exceedances of water quality objectives for bacterial indicators.

Treatment facilities must be built in locations and styles to reduce the level of bacterial indicators discharged from Urban Sources.

Remain in compliance with Urban WLA for bacteria indicators.

Develop and implement a comprehensive bacteria reduction plan (CBRP).

June 2017

A-7





Region 9 – Municipal Orange County and 13 incorporated Cities NPDES: CAS0108740

Laguna Coastal Streams, Aliso Creek, Dana Point Coastal Streams, San Juan Creek, San Clemente Coastal Streams

Implement specific BMPs to reduce concentrations of pollutants, including bacteria, and provide water quality improvements.

Develop and implement Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plans (JRMPs) and Watershed Runoff Management Plans (WRMPs).

Require BMPs for industrial sites.

Meet WLA as developed in TMDL, incorporated BMPs capable of achieving the interim and final Bacteria Indicator.

Conduct monitoring of Bacteria Indicators as necessary.

WLA for Baby Beach: - Total Coliform

- Dry weather 0.86 (Billion MPN/Day) - Wet weather 3,254 (Billion MPN/30 Days)

- Fecal Coliform - Dry weather 0.17 (Billion MPN/Day) - Wet weather 112 (Billion MPN/30 Days)

- Enterococcus - Dry weather 0.03 (Billion MPN/Day) - Wet weather 114 (Billion MPN/30 Days)

Final Bacteria Indicator Numeric Targets for Baby Beach: - Total Coliform

- Dry weather 1000 (30-Day geo mean MPN/100mL) - Dry and wet weather 10,000 (Single sample max MPN/100mL)

- Fecal Coliform - Dry weather 200 (30-Day geo mean MPN/Day) - Dry and wet weather 400 (Single sample max MPN/100mL)

- Enterococcus - Dry weather 35 (30-Day geo mean MPN/Day) - Dry and wet weather 104 (Single sample max MPN/100mL)

Annually assess effectiveness of JRMP to reduce SW pollutant loadings.

June 2017

A-8





Region 9 – San Diego Region Cities of Murrieta, Temecula, Wildomar, County of Riverside, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

Eleven hydrologic units in the San Diego region

Five of the eleven hydrologic units five were listed as having bacteria impairments at the time the permit was developed.

Develop and implement a Jurisdictional Regional Management Plan (JRMP) and/or a SWMP.

The Permittee must examine all dry weather effluent analytical monitoring results, follow-up investigations must be conducted to identify and control, any non-prohibited discharge category(ies).

The Permittee must conduct effluent monitoring.

Action levels of Non-Stormwater Dry Weather: -Fecal Coliform: 200 MPN/100mL based on five samples during a 30-day period. Additionally, no more than 10% of total samples may exceed 400 MPN/100mL during any 30 day period. -Enterococci: 33 MPN/100mL average monthly limit. Additionally 61 MPN/100mL for instantaneous max

LID BMP are implemented at Priority Development Projects w/proper sizing.

Source control BMPs include prevent illicit discharges, minimize stormwater pollutants of concern, elimination irrigation.

The Permittee must develop and implement a Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP).

Develop and enforce an illicit discharge detection and elimination.

The Permittee must annually report on the activities effectiveness and compliance as applicable based on the JRMP.

Region 9 – San Diego Region, 21 permittees including County of San Diego and San Diego Unified Port District

Santa Margarita River, San Luis Rey River, Carlsbad Watershed area, San Diequito River, Mission Bay, San Diego Bay, San Diego River, Tijuana River

The Permittee is required to develop and implement a Standard Urban Runoff Management Program (SURMP)

Require the LID when possible.

Require the use of BMPs to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants into MS4s to the MEP.

Develop a Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP).

Develop a dry weather field screening and analytical monitoring procedures including sampling for Enterococcus, total coliform, and fecal coliform.

If dry weather field screening and analytical monitoring results whereby exceedance of criteria will require follow-up investigations be conducted to identify and eliminate the source causing the exceedances.

Conduct dry weather field screening and analytical monitoring.

June 2017

B-1

Appendix B. Municipal and Industrial Discharger Estimated Compliance

The exhibits below show the analyses for each of the criteria and implementation options based on numeric WQBELs for dischargers

in the sample population.

Exhibit B-1. Estimated Compliance Under Baseline and Policy Scenarios

Permit No./Parameters Max. Monitoring Value (MPN/100

mL)

Baseline Policy

Limit Value (MPN/100 mL)

Limit Type


Limit Type In Compliance?

CA0037541 – San Mateo WWTF (Lower San Francisco Bay)

Coliform, fecal general

Monthly Median 157.1

Daily Maximum 500 400 90th perc.

Enterococci

Geomean 33.3 35 Geomean 30/110 Geomean/STV No

CA0037621 – Sunnyvale WPCP (Lower San Francisco Bay)

Enterococci

Geomean 9.89 35 Geomean 35/110 Geomean/STV Yes

CA0037664 – CCSF Southeast WPCP (San Francisco Bay)

Coliform, fecal general

Monthly Median 815 500 Monthly Median

Daily Maximum 1600 1100 90th perc.

Enterococci

Geomean 25 35 Geomean 35/110 Geomean/STV Yes

CA0037753 – Sanitary District No. 5 of Marin County WWTP (Central San Francisco Bay)

Coliform, total general

Monthly Median 80

Daily Maximum 110 10,000 Daily Max

Enterococci

June 2017

B-2

Exhibit B-1. Estimated Compliance Under Baseline and Policy Scenarios

Permit No./Parameters Max. Monitoring Value (MPN/100

mL)

Baseline Policy


Limit Type


Limit Type In Compliance?

Geomean 4.2 35 Geomean 35/110 Geomean/STV Yes

CA0048151 – Pismo Beach WWTF (Pacific Ocean)

Enterococci

Geomean 170

35/110 Geomean/STV Unknown

Coliform, total general

Monthly Median 898 200 Monthly Median

Daily Maximum 1700 2000 Daily Max

June 2017

C-1

Appendix C. Municipal and Industrial Discharger Process Modification Analysis

The exhibits below show the process modification analyses for each of the plants unable to comply with WQBELs under either the

baseline or Policy scenario.

Exhibit C-1. Process Modification Design Summary

Plant NPDES No. Avg. Design Flow (MGD)

Incremental Cl2

Requirement (lbs/year)

Type of Cylinder

No. Cylinders

Storage Area (sq. ft)

Incremental Contact Volume (cu. ft.)

Concrete (cu. yd.)

Baffles (sq ft)


San Mateo WWTP CA0037541 15.7 191,169 1-ton

8 (Monthly Refills) 1,200 21,861 125 4,280

Exhibit C-2. Process Modification Cost Summary

Plant NPDES No.

Capital Costs

O&M Costs

Annualized Costs

Study Storage Area/ Tanks

Baffles Add.

Contact Basins

Basin Cleaning

(per year)

Chorine Purchases (per year)

3% Interest Rate

7% Interest Rate


San Mateo WWTP CA0037541 $9,525

$152,687 $205,143 $57,694 $7,402 $165,176 $200,223 $211,401

June 2017

C-2

Documents

Economic Analysis of Proposed Water Quality Objectives for ... · 5/25/2017 · Economic Analysis of Proposed Water Quality Objectives for Pathogens in ... Summary of California’s